Stefan Pochmann writes:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Or simpler still:
Yes, I didn't try to make it "simpler", but intentionally kept the transformations as-is.
But you didn't, really. As-is would use genexps to "inline" the map and filter calls: list(x for x in (y + 1 for y in [1, 2, 3]) if x % 2 == 0) which in this case is much harder to get wrong, and still reads as well as, if not better than, the original "chained methods of dataflow object" idiom. Sure, it's a little verbose, but I think it's time for proponents to find persuasive examples, preferably not having nice genexp implementations (and in the stdlib). I don't recall if Steven said or I'm inferring that he'd like the whole proposal better if there were a persuasive "pipeline" syntax proposal with it, but that's where I am. I don't find "method chaining as pipeline" to be an attractive syntax. That's a big IMO FYI, of course YMMV. Yet another Steve